From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:26:34 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-s3c2410: Add bus arbitration implementation In-Reply-To: References: <1354165536-18529-1-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> <1354165536-18529-3-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> <20121129163448.GA3761@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20121201132632.GA17981@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this > > was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this? > it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any > other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement > it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one > comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code. > At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced > otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter. This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun... I suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first time someone tried to upstream such a scheme. This is all especially true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for now it'd be better to define generic bindings. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: